Battle of the 50mm's (1.2L , ZE 1.4, ZE 2.0)

[RLPhoto]

Hi All,
I've recently got my 5D Mark III, and got it with the kit lens, and in a months time I really want to pick up a good 50mm prime (I've come from film, and a good 50mm prime was the lens that stuck to my camera body the most), so I've narrowed it down to these three choices. I'm liking the 1.2L, as I was really quite impressed with the build quality of the 24-105 (I thought I'd hate it coming from all metal film lenses), and the fact that it has a bit of a larger aperture, and let's admit, it looks really nice too.

The other two options are both Zeiss, and I'm considering these due to their build quality (closer to what I was used to) and the fact they're manual focus only is a non issue for me, I'm quite used to it from when I shot film, and the 5D III's focusing screen is super bright, and very easy to MF in (even with the f/4 lens)

So basically, I'm just wondering what people who've maybe tried any of these lenses have thought and which you would reccomend I'm sure they're all fine lenses and I'll be just as happy with any, but would love to hear some opinions.

Thanks in advance all!

I would recommend getting a brand new Nikon 50mm 1.2 and using a Nikon to Canon AF confirm adapter.

http://www.adorama.com/NK5012.html

The Nikon 50mm 1.2 is the best 50mm lens ever made for image quality stopped down.



It's as sharp as the 50mm 1.4D is at f/2.8 at f/2.0. meaning it's "a stop sharper".

Here's a comparison between the 1.4D at f/2.8 (simulating the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 as it's not been tested by that website) and the Zeiss 50mm f/2.0 Makro which is the sharpest 50mm lens you've posted:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=637&Camera=614&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=3&LensComp=727&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

Simply put the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is equivalent to the following lenses at f/2.0:

Zeiss 50mm f/2.0: Would have to be at f/2.8 to be equally sharp
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp
Canon 50mm 1.2: Would have to be at f/4.0 to be equally sharp

It has substantially better image quality than any other 50mm lens out there stopped down.

With that said the Nikon 50mm 1.2 is average at f/1.2 and average at f/1.4 (there are better 1.2 and 1.4 lenses but it's not bad), it's just the best 50mm lens AT or BELOW 50mm f/2.0 and it's nice to have the abbility to go to f/1.2 even if it's second or third best at that.

On top of that the Nikon 50mm f/1.2 is built like a tank, it has better build quality than any of the lenses you listed by a huge margin, yes even the Zeiss lenses which most people can't fanthom being improved upon. It's build quality can be described as how a tank would be built if it were made by a swiss watch maker.

Anyways hope that helps.

You forgot to mention the Nikon 50mm 1.2 has the worst coma and veil haze to ever cross a 50mm design still being mass produced from f/1.2 to f/2. The canon 50L does not have those abberations from its aspherical Element. Stopped down performance at f/4 is moot, as we're using fast 50mm for low-light and wide open performance is required.

The 50L is king from 1.2-2.8 w/o abberations like the coma and veil hazing on non aspherical designs.

[noisejammer]

I can't help wondering where those mtf plots came from - wide open the ZE 2/50 has 92% contrast at 10 lp/mm, 88% at 20 lp/mm and 75% at 40 lp/mm. This means that it runs rings around every one of the lenses that have been quoted at all resolutions. Note that this is a tested mtf, not a theoretical one.

Secondly - I have done a fair bit of testing of fast lenses. It's clear that light from the perifery of fast lenses does not make it down to the active part of a pixel. At f/1.2, less that 20% of the light from the f/1.2-f/1.4 ring actually gets to the sensor (the rest presumably bounces around or is absorbed elsewhere.) The f/1.4-f/2 ring looses about 50% of the light that should be detected. I've posted plots of this information elsewhere.

It seems pretty clear that if light doesn't get to the active part of the pixel, it cannot be detected. If it cannot be detected, it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh. If it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh, why spend money on them? Before spending kilodollars on ultra-fast glass, you might want to read this. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

[bigmag13]

I can't help wondering where those mtf plots came from - wide open the ZE 2/50 has 92% contrast at 10 lp/mm, 88% at 20 lp/mm and 75% at 40 lp/mm. This means that it runs rings around every one of the lenses that have been quoted at all resolutions. Note that this is a tested mtf, not a theoretical one.

Secondly - I have done a fair bit of testing of fast lenses. It's clear that light from the perifery of fast lenses does not make it down to the active part of a pixel. At f/1.2, less that 20% of the light from the f/1.2-f/1.4 ring actually gets to the sensor (the rest presumably bounces around or is absorbed elsewhere.) The f/1.4-f/2 ring looses about 50% of the light that should be detected. I've posted plots of this information elsewhere.

It seems pretty clear that if light doesn't get to the active part of the pixel, it cannot be detected. If it cannot be detected, it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh. If it cannot contribute to lens speed or bokeh, why spend money on them? Before spending kilodollars on ultra-fast glass, you might want to read this. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/an_open_letter_to_the_major_camera_manufacturers.shtml

And lets not forget it just takes better pics, lol.

Zeiss 2/50, 5D2. @3.5 1/125 iso200

[samueljay]

^ Beautiful shots!

[Marsu42]

I like this link for viewing peoples posted 50L shots.

I just tried a 50L (actually only to compare it to a Tamron 24-70), but I noticed something that I want to be clear about: At f1.2 all shots were as I'd expect them to be from reading reviews, but stopped down to f1.4 the lens showed *massive* CAs resulting in very "colorful" shots. Was this a bad sample, or is this normal behavior and usually corrected in post, so it doesn't show in gallery shots?

[arcanej]

I've not had any troubles with my 50L. If I remember, I took this at f2


GS0C3326.jpg by Evan's Pix, on Flickr

[Marsu42]

I've not had any troubles with my 50L. If I remember, I took this at f2

Ah, well, I should have added that the CAs occurred on high contrast black-white borders on f1.4 (but not on f1.2). With contrasts like in your picture, not even a kit lens should produce color edges.

[RGomezPhotos]

I am a Zeiss lens user and so lack of a user-upgradeable screen is strange. But found that brightscreens offers modified 5D Mark III

http://brightscreenstore.com/estore/?page_id=15#ecwid:category=1747387&mode=product&product=10130077

[zim]

Great thread, so informative

What's the down side to using the sceen upgrade like a brightscreen with slower glass?

[skitron]

That being said...I do not think that the Sigma is a compromise in any way. I just got a 5DMkIII (but have not used it much yet)...so my references are from the MkII.  I have found the Sigma to have good autofocus, great bokeh wide open (a little soft but all of these large aperture lenses are not their sharpest wide open)..and with the aperture closed down a little the lens is AMAZINGLY sharp. Really. Also...I found the Sigma to be less expensive and not as much of a beast to tote around like the Canon 50mm f/1.2, an  yet  the Sigma "approaches" that lense's bokeh.  (I think that the Canon f/1.2 lens may auto-focus more slowly, too,  than the Sigma..but I could be wrong on the point..not sure)    The Sigma has the best balance of all of these lenses for me.  I know that everyone's shooting style and needs are different...so this may not be the prime normal lens for everyone, but I have been very happy with my choice in this area.

I gotta agree.. I picked up the sigma 50 as well... Love it.
It had a slight front focusing issue that I was able to fix with MFA.. I took it in to sigma along with the body, and had them calibrate it.. It reduced the front focus a bit.
I also like the fact that it's a 77mm filter size.

+1

Despite all of the internet chatter about how many problems the Sigma has with AF, mine (recent smooth finish) nails focus with the outer focus points on my 5D2 in moderate light. My 100L misses every single time on the outer points in moderate to good light.

If the Sigma was branded as a Canon and came out as the replacement for the existing Canon 1.4 at this price point, everyone would be high-fiving Canon IMO. Just goes to show a long history of mediocrity on the part of Sigma is very tough to overcome in the marketplace. Especially in the case of this lens where apparently the early ones with the rough finish had some issues. But for me, taking a chance on them worked out nicely.

[wickidwombat]

That being said...I do not think that the Sigma is a compromise in any way. I just got a 5DMkIII (but have not used it much yet)...so my references are from the MkII.  I have found the Sigma to have good autofocus, great bokeh wide open (a little soft but all of these large aperture lenses are not their sharpest wide open)..and with the aperture closed down a little the lens is AMAZINGLY sharp. Really. Also...I found the Sigma to be less expensive and not as much of a beast to tote around like the Canon 50mm f/1.2, an  yet  the Sigma "approaches" that lense's bokeh.  (I think that the Canon f/1.2 lens may auto-focus more slowly, too,  than the Sigma..but I could be wrong on the point..not sure)    The Sigma has the best balance of all of these lenses for me.  I know that everyone's shooting style and needs are different...so this may not be the prime normal lens for everyone, but I have been very happy with my choice in this area.

I gotta agree.. I picked up the sigma 50 as well... Love it.
It had a slight front focusing issue that I was able to fix with MFA.. I took it in to sigma along with the body, and had them calibrate it.. It reduced the front focus a bit.
I also like the fact that it's a 77mm filter size.

+1

Despite all of the internet chatter about how many problems the Sigma has with AF, mine (recent smooth finish) nails focus with the outer focus points on my 5D2 in moderate light. My 100L misses every single time on the outer points in moderate to good light.

If the Sigma was branded as a Canon and came out as the replacement for the existing Canon 1.4 at this price point, everyone would be high-fiving Canon IMO. Just goes to show a long history of mediocrity on the part of Sigma is very tough to overcome in the marketplace. Especially in the case of this lens where apparently the early ones with the rough finish had some issues. But for me, taking a chance on them worked out nicely.

can you post a link of where to buy this recent siggy with smooth finish?

[Bosman]

I've not had any troubles with my 50L. If I remember, I took this at f2

Ah, well, I should have added that the CAs occurred on high contrast black-white borders on f1.4 (but not on f1.2). With contrasts like in your picture, not even a kit lens should produce color edges.

With LR4 CA is a non issue imho.

[risc32]

Great thread, so informative

What's the down side to using the sceen upgrade like a brightscreen with slower glass?

The downside will be that your viewfinder will be darker than you're used to. how much darker would depend on the aperture size. how much darker would an f4 be than a 2.8? 1/2 as dark? i have no idea on that. also, these screens affect the metering, so if you change screens you're out in the wilderness.

[wickidwombat]

Great thread, so informative

What's the down side to using the sceen upgrade like a brightscreen with slower glass?

The downside will be that your viewfinder will be darker than you're used to. how much darker would depend on the aperture size. how much darker would an f4 be than a 2.8? 1/2 as dark? i have no idea on that. also, these screens affect the metering, so if you change screens you're out in the wilderness.

with the EGS screen f4 lenses become noticably darker making it difficult in low light however the brightscreen is considerbly brighter and I dont find this an issue, I've not tried it with f5.6 lenses but its fine with the 24-105 f4L the 300 f4L IS and my 600 f4.5 FD

[samueljay]

Just wanted to chirp in again and say that after almost a whole month with my 50mm ƒ/1.2L I absolutely love it, it has barely left my body (only briefly swapped for the 70-200 for sports), it's my favourite lens! Haven't noticed any issues with focus shift or difficulty focusing manually with the 5D, but I'm just a consumer, not a pro or anything :p